The Universe of Discourse

Jonathan Chait

[ Content warning: angry, contemptuous ranting that accomplishes nothing. ]

I didn't really know who Jonathan Chait was until last week when I unfortunately read this essay of his (from February 2016) on “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination”.

I've said a lot of dumb things in my life but I don't think I've ever been as wrong about anything as Chait was about this. I sure hope I haven't. But if I do ever find out I had been this wrong about something, I would want to retire to a cave or a mountaintop or something.

“Hey, remember Dominus? Whatever happened to him, anyway?”

“Oh, he said he was going away to cleanse himself of error, and might not be back for a long time.”

And yet this guy is still shamelessly writing. And why not? Editors are still buying his essays and maybe people are even still reading them. Why? You'd think that people would look at this essay and say “yeah, that's enough Chait for me, thanks, next time I need an opinion I'll try someone else.” I get it, nobody's right all the time. Whenever you read anyone's essay you're taking a risk, like rolling a die. Sometimes the die rolls high, sometimes it rolls low, and some dice might have higher numbers to begin with. I've usually been well-served by Daniel Dennett's dice, and Robertson Davies'.

But here people have an opportunity to toss a totally unknown die that they haven't tried before but that most likely rolls numbers from 1 to 6, and instead they toss the Jonathan Chait die when they know it has at least one side with a -1000.

A long time ago, I wrote:

I hate trying to predict the future; I don't think I'm good at it and I don't think anyone else is.

I don't think anyone could have predicted the extent of the current fiasco, but I do think it should not have been hard to predict, in 2016, that liberals should not, in fact, have supported a Trump Republican nomination.

Anyone can be wrong, even the wise cannot see all ends. But I think this one was maybe not so hard to see. Chait spends a lot of time comparing Trump with Arnold Schwartzenegger: both nominally conservative, both inexperienced in government, both assholes. I think the part that Chait ignored was that by 2016 — no, scratch that, by 1990 — it was perfectly clear that Trump was a liar, a thief, a racist, and a deadbeat, and that he had no respect for law or truth or ethics or anything other than his own convenience of the moment. (Here are just two examples. More recently, his ridiculous years-long insistence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And earlier, his equally ridiculous lies around his destruction of the Bonwit Teller building.)

In that old essay I said:

Most people who try don't seem to revisit their old predictions to see if they were correct, or to learn from their past errors, and the people who listen to them never do this.

I looked around a little to see if Jonathan Chait had written an essay titled “I was wrong, I was so, so wrong, I just couldn't have been wronger” but I didn't find one and I also didn't find any recent essays that said anything like “here's why I think this new essay is more reliable than that embarrassing Trump one I wrote for The New Yorker in 2016.”

I don't understand how Chait still has a job after writing this essay. Why isn't he selling shoes? How does a writer come back from this? Isn't there some charitable society for the protection for the public that could pay to have someone follow Chait around, quoting out loud from this essay, as a warning to everyone he meets for the rest of his life?

It least now I've been warned. Now when I read “Jonathan Chait said recently…” I'll remember: “Oh, you mean Jonathan ‘Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination’ Chait! Thanks, I'll pass.”

[Other articles in category /politics] permanent link

Claude chokes on graph theory

Having had some pleasant surprises from Claude, I thought I'd see if it could do math. It couldn't. Apparently some LLMs can sometimes solve Math Olympiad problems, but Claude didn't come close.

First I asked something simple as a warmup:

MJD: What is the largest number that is less than 1000?

I had tried this on ChatGPT a couple of years back, with tragic results:

ChatGPT: The largest number that is less than 1000 is 999.

But it should have quit while it was ahead, because its response continued:

ChatGPT: Any number that is less than 1000 will have three digits, with the first digit being 9, the second digit being 9, and the third digit being any number from 0 to 8.

and then when I questioned it further it drove off the end of the pier:

ChatGPT: Any number with four or more digits can be less than 1000, depending on the specific digits that are used. For example, the number 9991 is a four-digit number that is less than 1000.

Claude, whatever its faults, at least knew when to shut up:

MJD: What is the largest number that is less than 1000?

Claude: 999

I then asked it “What if it doesn't have to be an integer?” and it didn't do so well, but that's actually a rather tricky question, not what I want to talk about today. This article is about a less tricky question.

I have omitted some tedious parts, and formatted the mathematics to be more readable. The complete, unedited transcript can be viewed here.

I started by setting up context:

MJD: Let's say that the cube graph !!Q_n!! has as vertices the set !!\{0,1\}^n!! and two vertices are connected with an edge if and only if their coordinates differ in exactly one position. This is a standard construction. Are you familiar with it?

Claude asserted that it was familiar with this family of graphs. ((Wikipedia on cube graphs.) The basic examples, !!Q_0!! through !!Q_3!!, look like this:

Each graph consists of two copies of the previous graph, with new edges added between the corresponding vertices in the copies.

Then I got to the real question:

Now let's say that the Keane number for a graph !!G!! is the largest number !!k!! such that:

1. !!G!! can be partitioned into !!k!! connected subgraphs, and
2. each pair of subgraphs is adjacent, in the sense that for each pair !!H!!, !!K!! there is an edge of !!G!! with one vertex in !!H!! and one in !!K!!.

If you understand so far, tell me the Keane numbers of the cube graphs !!Q_0, Q_1!!, and !!Q_2!!.

Here are the maximal partitions for those three graphs:

The Keane number of !!Q_0!! is !!1!! because it has only one vertex. For !!Q_1!! we can put each of the two vertices into a separate part to get two parts. For !!Q_2!! we can get three parts as above. But there is no partition of !!Q_2!! into four parts that satisfies the second condition, because two of the parts would have to comprise the upper-left and lower-right vertices, and would not be connected by an edge.

Claude got this initial question right. So far so good.

Then I asked Claude for the Keane number of !!Q_3!! and this it was unable to produce.

The correct number is !!4!!. There are several essentially different partitions of !!Q_3!! into four parts, each of which touches the other three, which proves that the number is at least !!4!!. Here are two examples:

In addition to these there are also partitions into parts of sizes !!1+1+2+4!!, and sizes !!1+1+3+3!!.

On the other hand, more than !!4!! parts is impossible, and the proof is one sentence long: !!Q_3!! has only !!8!! vertices, so any partition into !!5!! or more parts must have a part of size !!1!!, and this part can't be adjacent to the other four parts, because a single vertex has only three outgoing edges. I would expect a bright middle-schooler to figure this out in at most a few minutes.

At first, Claude got the right number, but with completely bogus reasoning. To avoid belaboring the obvious, I'll highlight the errors but I won't discuss them at length.

Claude:

• Let's find the maximum possible !!k!!:
  
  • One valid partition with !!k=4!! exists:
    
    • Take two opposite vertices (e.g., !!000!! and !!111!!)
    • Make these two single-vertex subgraphs
    • Split the remaining !!6!! vertices into two paths of !!3!! vertices each
    • Each subgraph is connected
    • Each pair of subgraphs will have an edge between them

The diagrams I showed earlier display some of the partitions that show !!k≥4!!, but the one Claude gave here does not, because two of its parts (!!D!! and !!B!!) are not adjacent:

Claude:

• Why can't !!k!! be !!5!! or more?
  • If we had !!5!! or more subgraphs, we would need !!{5 \choose2} = 10!! edges between pairs
  • !!Q_3!! only has !!12!! edges total
  • Some edges would need to be reused for multiple pairs
  • But each edge can only connect one pair of subgraphs
  • Therefore !!5!! or more subgraphs is impossible

Okay, Claude, I agree we would need ten edges for the connections between the parts, but we have !!12!!, so why do you say that “some edges would need to be reused”? It may be correct, but it does not follow.

Claude:
Therefore, the Keane number of !!Q_3!! is !!4!!.

Would you like me to verify any part of this reasoning?

So, right answer, but seemingly by luck, since there were serious errors in reasoning, in both the !!k≥4!! part and also in the !!k< 5!! part. I decided to ignore the second one.

MJD: You said two of the subgraphs are !!H=\{000\}!! and !!K=\{111\}!!. You said each pair of subgraps will have an edge between them. What edge connects !!H!! and !!K!!?

Claude: Ah, I made a mistake.

The vertices !!000!! and !!111!! differ in all three positions, so they are not adjacent in !!Q_3!! (they need to differ in exactly one position to have an edge between them). This means that making them single-vertex subgraphs would violate condition (2) since these subgraphs would not be adjacent.

I need to rethink my claimed partition. Would you like me to try again to determine the Keane number of !!Q_3!!?

MJD: Yes.

Claude: [finds a specific example showing !!k≥3!!, and remarks that !!k=4!! “seems difficult”]
Let me work on verifying whether !!k=4!! is possible or !!k=3!! is maximum. Would you like me to continue?

MJD: Please go on.

Claude: Let me try to prove !!k=3!! is maximum in !!Q_3!!.

Suppose we had !!k=4!! subgraphs. Then:

• We need !!{4 \choose 2} = 6!! edges between different subgraphs
  • Each subgraph needs to be connected:
    
    • A subgraph with !!3!! vertices needs at least !!2!! edges
    • A subgraph with !!2!! vertices needs !!1!! edge
    • A subgraph with !!1!! vertex needs !!0!! edges
  • There are !!12!! edges total in !!Q_3!!
  • If we have !!4!! subgraphs:
    • First, !!6!! edges must go between different subgraphs
    • That leaves only !!6!! edges for internal connectivity
    • But with !!8!! vertices split into !!4!! subgraphs:
      • If any subgraph has !!3+!! vertices, it needs !!2+!! edges internally
      • If any has !!4+!! vertices, it needs !!3+!! edges internally
      • With !!8!! vertices total divided into !!4!! parts, at least one part must have !!3+!! vertices
      • After using !!2+!! edges for that part and !!6!! edges between parts, we don't have enough edges left to make all other parts connected

Therefore !!k=4!! is impossible, and the Keane number of !!Q_3!! is !!3!!.

Claude seems completely undirected here. Some of the things it says are correct facts, but it can't link the facts together into actual reasoning, except by accident. Sometimes it utters A followed by B where A implies B, and it seems exciting, but just as often B is a nonsequitur.

This is not that different from how ChatGPT was two years ago. It can spout text, and often it can spout enough plausible, grammatically-correct text to suggest that it knows things and is thinking about them. Claude's text-spouting prowess is much more impressive than ChatGPT's was two years ago. But it is still just a text-spouter.

I went on, trying to detect actual thinking.

MJD: What if there were !!4!! parts of !!2!! vertices each?

Claude's response here correctly applied its earlier analysis: four parts of size !!2!! would use up four edges for internal connectivity, leaving !!8!! for external connections, and we only need !!6!!.

Claude: I was too quick to conclude 4 was impossible. Let me try to find an explicit partition into 4 parts of 2 vertices each...
Would you like me to try to find such a partition, or would you first like me to verify that this kind of partition would definitely satisfy the adjacency requirement (condition 2)?

MJD: You keep going until you think you ha e the right answer.

Claude: Let me try to construct a partition of !!Q_3!! into !!4!! parts of !!2!! vertices each: …

This time Claude tried this partition:

It noticed that two of the four parts were not adjacent, and gave up without searching further.

Claude: This makes me think !!3!! really is the maximum.

If Claude were a human mathematician, this would be a serious error. Finding one invalid partition proves nothing at all.

Claude: My previous argument was wrong, but the conclusion might be right. Would you like me to try to prove more carefully that !!4!! is impossible?

There is no proof that !!4!! is impossible, and I thought it would be unenlightening to watch Claude flounder around with it. But I wanted to see what would happen if I asked it to prove a false claim that should be easier because its premise is stronger:

MJD: Try a weaker conjecture: prove more carefully the four parts of size 2 is impossible.

Claude: Okay, let me prove that we cannot partition !!Q_3!! into four parts of size 2 each.

1. Suppose we had such a partition !!H_1, H_2, H_3, H_4!!, where each !!H_i!! contains exactly two vertices.
2. For any such !!H_i!!, its two vertices must be adjacent (to be connected). This means they differ in exactly one coordinate.
3. Therefore, each !!H_i!! must be of one of these forms:
   • Two vertices differing in 1st coordinate (like !!000,100!!)
   • Two vertices differing in 2nd coordinate (like !!000,010!!)
   • Two vertices differing in 3rd coordinate (like !!000,001!!)
4. Consider any vertex !!v!! in !!Q_3!!. It has exactly 3 neighbors:
   • One differing in 1st coordinate
   • One differing in 2nd coordinate
   • One differing in 3rd coordinate
5. Therefore, if !!v!! is in !!H_i!!:
   • One of its neighbors must also be in !!H_i!!
   • That leaves only two edges from !!v!! that could connect to other parts
   • So !!v!! can only help !!H_i!! be adjacent to at most two other parts
6. But each !!H_i!! needs to be adjacent to all three other parts

This contradiction proves no such partition exists.

It's tempting to look at this and say that Claude was almost right. It produced 16 lines and at least 15 of them, on their own, were correct. But it's less impressive than it might first appear. Again Claude displays the pattern of spouting text, some of which is correct, and some of which is related. But that is all I can say in its favor. Most of its statements are boilerplate. Sections 2–4 can be deleted with nothing lost. Claude has buried the crux of the argument, and its error, in section 5.

MJD: In step 5 I see that if !!v!! is in !!H_i!!, it can only help !!H_i!! be adjacent to two other parts. But !!H_i!! has size 2, so it contains a vertex other than !!v!!. If !!v!! connects !!H_i!! to two other parts, couldn't the other vertex of !!H_i!! connect !!H_i!! to a third part?

Claude: Ah, you're absolutely right! My proof attempt failed. Let me back up and try a different approach to the original question of whether !!Q_3!! can be partitioned into 4 parts that satisfy both conditions.

…

This time Claude did find a correct partition into four parts, showing that !!k≥4!!.

MJD: How did you come up with that example partition?

Claude: I should be honest - I didn't find it systematically. I was trying different arrangements somewhat randomly until I found one that worked. …

I don't think there is any sense in which this is true, but at this point I hadn't yet internalized that Claude's descriptions of its own internal processes are text-spouting just like the rest of its output. In any case, I ignored this and asked it to analyze its own earlier mistake:

MJD: Earlier you purported to prove that !!k=4!! was impossible, saying that !!6!! edges would be needed to connect the !!4!! parts, and that this did not leave enough edges to connect the parts internally. You didn't analyze this carefully, so you missed the solution where all four parts have !!2!! vertices each. Do that analysis more carefully than you did last time and explain why that counting method does not rule out a partition of !!Q_3!! into !!2+2+2+2!!.

Claude: (details elided)

So this counting argument shows:

• We need 10 edges
• We have 12 edges
• Therefore the counting argument does not rule out a !!2+2+2+2!! partition

My earlier analysis erred by not being explicit about the numbers. I just had a vague sense that we needed "too many" edges, without actually counting them. This shows the importance of precise counting rather than relying on intuition about what seems like "too many".

Claude got the counting part right, although I think the final paragraph is just spouting, especially the claim “I just had a vague sense that…”, which should not be taken seriously.

[ Digression: This reminds me of a section in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained in which he discusses the perils of asking humans about their internal processes. The resulting answers, he says, may provide interesting informaiton about what people think is going on in their heads, but we should be very wary about ascribing any accuracy or insight to these descriptions. Dennett makes an analogy with an anthropologist who asks a forest tribe about their forest god. The tribespeople agree that the forest god is eight feet tall, he wears a panther skin, and so on. And while this might be folklorically interesting, we should be very reluctant to conclude from this testimony that there is actually an eight-foot-tall fur-clad god in the forest somewhere. We should be similarly reluctant to ascribe real existence to Claude's descriptions of its “vague senses” or other internal processes suggested by its remarks like “Ah, let me think...” or “Ah, you're absolutely right!”. Claude has even less access to its own mental states (such as they are) than a human would. ]

As I pointed out earlier in this article, there are several essentially different solutions to the problem of partitioning !!Q_3!! into four parts. Claude has found one of them, the one I showed above on the left. I wanted to see if it could find another:

MJD: Are there any other partitions that are not ruled out by that argument? Or is 2+2+2+2 the only possibility?

Claude: Let me think about what other partitions could satisfy the edge-counting constraint.

If we have !!4!! parts, need !!6!! edges between parts, and have !!12!! total edges, then we can use up to !!6!! edges for internal connectivity of parts.

Possible partitions of !!8!! vertices into !!4!! parts could be:

• !!2+2+2+2!! (needs !!4!! internal edges)
• !!3+2+2+1!! (needs !!3!! internal edges)
• !!4+2+1+1!! (needs !!4!! internal edges)
• !!3+3+1+1!! (needs !!4!! internal edges)
• !!5+1+1+1!! (needs !!6!! internal edges)

So from just edge counting:

(Claude concludes that none of these is ruled out by edge-counting.)

So the edge-counting argument alone doesn't rule out any of these distributions of part sizes. We'd need additional arguments to determine which are actually possible in !!Q_3!!.

MJD: Why didn't you consider !!4+2+2+1!!?

Claude: Ah, you're right - I should have considered !!4+2+2+1!!! For !!4+2+2+1!!:

• The part of size !!4!! needs at least !!3!! internal edges to be connected
• The parts of size !!2!! each need !!1!! internal edge
• So that's !!5!! internal edges needed
• Plus !!6!! edges needed between parts
• Total needed = !!11!! edges
• We have !!12!! edges available

So this case is also not ruled out by edge counting. I apologize for missing it in my list. Would you like me to check if there are any other distributions I missed?

Oh, such failure! Failures that I have highlighted are clearly false statements, But the failure here is much worse. Again, almost everything Claude said was correct! And yet deeply wrong!

A bright middle-schooler could have missed this also. It was a bit of a trick question. Not because it's ambiguous, but because problem with !!4+2+2+1!! is not in line with the direction that the discussion was taking at that point. There is nothing wrong with !!4+2+2+1!! from an edge-counting point of view!

But I think a human mathematician, even a very young one, would have been more likely to answer the question I actually asked, which was “Why didn't you consider !!4+2+2+1!!?”, and from there might have quickly come to the useful conclusion that it doesn't need to be considered. Claude didn't do anything like that.

MJD: !!4+2+2+1!! doesn't work. Think about it more.

Claude: Let me think more carefully about a potential !!4+2+2+1!! partition.

1. Consider the part !!H!! of size !!4!!:

   • To be connected, it needs at least !!3!! edges internally
   • One vertex in !!H!! must connect to all !!3!! other vertices in !!H!!
   • But in !!Q_3!!, each vertex has only !!3!! edges total
   • If one vertex in !!H!! uses all its edges internally to connect to the other !!3!! vertices in !!H!!, it has no edges left to connect to other parts
   • But every part needs to be adjacent to every other part

2. Therefore !!4+2+2+1!! is impossible, not because of edge counting, but because:

   • Either !!H!! isn't connected (if we don't use enough internal edges)
   • Or !!H!! can't connect to all other parts (if we use too many internal edges)

This shows why just counting edges isn't enough - we also need to think about the structure of !!Q_3!! and how the edges can be arranged.

Terrible. This is so muddled I wasn't even sure what to highlight as the errors. Yes, if one vertex in !!H!! uses all its edges internally to connect to the other !!3!! vertices in !!H!!, it has no edges left to connect to other parts. But the other three vertices in !!H!! have two edges each, so !!H!! could easily connect to the other three parts.

And, of course, Claude has still missed the main point, which is that one needn't consider !!4+2+2+1!!, because !!4+2+2+1= 9!! and !!Q_3!! has only !!8!! vertices.

MJD: There is a much simpler argument why 4+2+2+1 won't work.

Claude: Ah, let me think...

In a !!4+2+2+1!! partition:

• The single vertex in the part of size !!1!! has degree !!3!! in !!Q_3!!
• But it needs to connect to all three other parts!
• It needs all three of its edges just to be adjacent to the other parts
• So it can't connect to all three other parts AND connect to three different vertices

This is a much simpler contradiction. I was making it too complicated by thinking about the part of size !!4!! when the part of size !!1!! immediately shows it's impossible.

MJD: How many vertices are.in !!Q_3!!?

Claude: !!Q_3!! has !!8!! vertices (all binary strings of length !!3!!):
!!\{000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111\}!!

And now I see an even simpler argument why !!4+2+2+1!! is impossible: !!4 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 9!! vertices, but !!Q_3!! only has !!8!! vertices!
I was doing complex analysis of connectivity and edges when I should have just checked that the claimed partition added up to the right number of vertices. This is a good reminder to check the most basic facts first.

Finally! I would love to know what really happened here. What caused Claude to emit a sentence connecting !!4 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 9!! with !!Q_8!! having only !!8!! vertices?

MJD: So remind me, did you decide that !!k(Q_3)!! is !!3!!, or !!4!!?

I wasn't sure it would remember this, by which I really mean that I wasn't sure it would be able to pick out from its previous mass of statements which one was correct. But whether by luck or not, it did answer the question correctly:

Claude: Earlier I found a valid partition of Q_3 into 4 parts:

!!H_1 = \{000, 001\} !! !!H_2 = \{100, 110\}!! !!H_3 = \{010, 011\}!! !!H_4 = \{101, 111\}!!

I verified that:

• Each part is connected
• Each part is adjacent to every other part

Therefore !!k(Q_3) ≥ 4!!.

I haven't yet proven that !!k(Q_3) ≤ 4!!. Would you like me to try to prove that !!5!! parts is impossible?

MJD: Please go ahead.

I found Claude's attempt at this interesting, but not in a good way. After reading it I shrugged and quit the conversation.

Claude:
Let me prove that !!5!! parts is impossible in !!Q_3!!.

1. Five parts would require !!{5 \choose 2} = 10!! different edges just to connect all pairs of parts to each other.
2. Each such edge must be distinct because a single edge can only connect one pair of parts.
3. Each vertex in !!Q_3!! has degree !!3!!. With !!8!! vertices, the total number of edges is !!(8 × 3)/2 = 12!!.
4. Out of these !!12!! edges:
   • !!10!! must be used to connect different parts to each other
   • That leaves only !!2!! edges for internal connectivity of parts
   • But with !!8!! vertices split into !!5!! parts, some part must have size !!≥ 2!!
   • Any part of size !!≥ 2!! must use at least one edge internally to be connected
   • If one part uses one edge internally, that leaves only one edge for all other parts
   • But if any other part has size !!≥ 2!!, it also needs an internal edge
   • With !!8!! vertices in !!5!! parts, at least two parts must have size !!≥ 2!!
   • Therefore !!2!! edges is not enough for internal connectivity

Thus !!k(Q_3) = 4!!.

Claude says that with !!8!! vertices in !!5!! parts, at least two parts must have size !!2!! or more. This is wrong, because you could have !!4+1+1+1+1!!.

But highlighting that wrong statement doesn't get at why this answer is so bad. It's bad because the conclusion that appears next is a complete nonsequitur.

The argument can be fixed up. I would put it like this:

• As Claude observed, we have only !!2!! edges available for internal connections
• A part with !!n!! vertices requires at least !!n-1!! edges for internal connections
• Let the sizes of the parts be !!n_1\dots n_5!!. Since !!n_1+\dots +n_5 = 8!!, we need at least !!(n_1-1)+\dots + (n_5-1) = 8-5 = 3!! edges for internal connections
• But we have only !!2!!.

It's true that !!2!! edges is not enough for internal connectivity. But in my opinion Claude didn't come close to saying why.

Back in the early part of the 20th century, we thought that chess was a suitable measure of intelligence. Surely a machine that could play chess would have to be intelligent, we thought. Then we built chess-playing computers and discovered that no, chess was easier than we thought. We are in a similar place again. Surely a machine that could hold a coherent, grammatical conversation on any topic would have to be intelligent. Then we built Claude and discovered that no, holding a conversation was easier than we thought.

Still by the standards of ten years ago this is stunning. Claude may not be able to think but it can definitely talk and this puts it on the level of most politicians, Directors of Human Resources, and telephone santizers. It will be fun to try this again next year and see whether it has improved.

Addendum

20250301

Many thanks to Jacob Vosmaer for his helpful discussion of how to improve this article.

[Other articles in category /tech/gpt] permanent link

Furniture Mecca

[ Content warning: shitpost ]

It's that time of year again! Furniture Mecca is having their annual sale.

This year the sale will run until Friday the 28th. At closing time on that day any remaining furniture will be hurriedly moved to the owner's other furniture store, Furniture Medina.

[Other articles in category /religion] permanent link

Leopards, faces, etc.

I expect we in the United States are about to see a wave of domestic terrorism unprecendented since the 1870s. In the wake of the Civil War, white Southerners used systematic terrorism to continue white supremacy. If a black person became too prosperous, masked thugs would come in the night to burn down their house. If a white person was seen helping a black one, the thugs would arrive, and might let them off lightly for a first offense, and administer only a severe beating, or a tar-and-feathering. If a black man voted, masked thugs would come to murder him perhaps by night, or perhaps in broad daylight and publicly. Blacks in the reconstruction South were met at polling places by armed mobs.

Local law enforcement ignored these lawless acts, and in many cases the terrorists were the local law enforcement: sheriffs, police, judges. The terrorism continued for decades, and the terrorists were restrained, to the extent they were restrained, only by federal enforcement of the anti-Klan acts.

A few weeks ago I hoped Trump might forget about the imprisoned January 6 rioters. Trump discards anyone for whom he has no use, I thought, and he has no more use for them. I was wrong. His pardon of hundreds of rioters sends a clear signal, to his followers and to his enemies, that political terrorism is now supported or at least condoned by the Federal executive branch. The federal executive will not enforce antiterrorism laws unless the terrorists are politically opposed to Trump.

Don't count on anyone to restrain Trump. If a judge rules the wrong way, they may be assaulted by masked thugs. If a congressperson becomes troublesome, their house may burn down in the night. If a newspaper reporter writes an article critical of Trump, masked thugs may kill them, perhaps gun them down in the street.

Nothing will be done. The FBI will shrug. Trump will call it fake news or will blame immigrants, Muslims, or Antifa.

And if you were one of the people cheering for Luigi Mangione last month, remember that that's what you were cheering for, a country where it's okay to gun down people in the street, as long as you hate them enough.

[Other articles in category /politics] permanent link

Think speak, now speak!

Katara is now in her sixth semester in college and can speak Mandarin. I am so proud!

For class she recently wrote a talk (in Mandarin) about Hua Guofeng, the often overlooked second chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. She videoed herself giving the talk, and posted it to YouTube. This somehow attracted over 700 views, and comments from a number of strangers, most of which were in Chinese. Some even offered suggestions — only minor suggestions, which she found very gratifying.

One comment, however, expressed irritation. Google translates it as:

You, a foreigner, don’t need to comment on the Chinese people’s affairs.

Shortly afterward though, there came a defense, which began with this delightful phrase:

想讲就讲

An idiomatic translation is "You can talk if you want!"

A character-by-character translation is:

• 想 - think
• 讲 - speak
• 就 - right now
• 讲 - speak

which I just love. If anyone is looking for a name for their new Chinese-language-themed blog, I think this would be a great choice.

[Other articles in category /lang] permanent link

David McShane's mural with 18 Franks, revealed

Yesterday I offered Gentle Readers a chance to identify the 18 famous Franks in David McShane's mural.

1. Benjamin Franklin
2. Frankie Avalon
3. Detail of ornament from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts building, designed by architect Frank Furness
4. A frankfurter
5. Aretha Franklin

I did not recognize the PAFA architectural detail myself, I had to find out from the Mural Arts website. I have sometimes looked for this detail on the PAFA building, but I have never found it.

6. Barney Frank
7. Frankenstein's monster
8. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
9. Frank Zappa

10. Frank Lloyd Wright
11. Major Frank Burns, as played by Larry Linville
12. Frank “Tug” McGraw

13. French 20-centime coin, representing the Franc
14. Frank Oz
15. Frank Perdue

I think these pictures might be so old that they predate the European currency union.

16. Frank Sinatra
17. Frank Morgan, in his role as the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz. (The book was written by L. Frank Baum.)
18. St. Francis of Assisi, with bird friend. The model is the artist's brother Frank.

Not depicted: Frank Rizzo, who is burning in Hell.

I was certain that Tim Curry was there somewhere, in his role as Dr. Frank-N-Furter, but if he ever was I can't find any evidence of it. I even emailed the muralist, who confirmed that Frank-N-Furter had never been there. Still, he is in all our hearts, forever.

The mural was restored in 2015, at which time two more figures were added:

19. Pope Francis, who had visited the city that year, and
20. Frank Sherlock, noted poet and longtime employee at Dirty Frank's

My pictures are at least that old.

[Other articles in category /art] permanent link

David McShane's mural with 18 Franks

Since the demolition of Harriet Tubman, this has been my favorite mural in Philadelphia. It's by Philadelphia muralist David McShane.

The mural is outside an infamous windowless bar called Dirty Frank's. I like to say that Oscar's Tavern on Sansom is Philadelphia's best Worst Bar. That's where, when the fancy place across the street wouldn't seat us, I took my coworker from out of town, with pride. Dirty Frank's might be Philadelphia's worst Worst Bar.

I few months ago Rik Signes remarked:

I think Mark Dominus said "Dirty Frank's is where I saw roaches walk over the food and when I told them, they shrugged"

I was at once able to refute this, because I know for a fact that I have never ordered food at Dirty Frank's. Nor would I. Actually I have only ever been there once, which was enough.

(Lorrie has a similar story about a similarly notorious bar, McGlinchey's. Hanging outside McGlinchey's is a sign that proclaims “sandwiches”. Lorrie tried to order a sandwich there and was met only with puzzled stares.)

I will stop digressing now. My current favorite mural is outside Dirty Frank's and is by David McShane. It depicts famous Franks through history. I enjoyed trying to identify the 18 Franks. Many years ago I took pictures of it so that I could offer my Gentle Readers an opportunity to enjoy this themselves. You can infer from the resolution of the pictures below how long ago that must have been. But at last, here they are. I will reveal the answers tomorrow.

(The answers.)

[Other articles in category /art] permanent link

Genealogy of the House of Reuss

A couple of years ago I lamented the difficulty I had in verifying what appeared to be a simple statement of fact:

[Abdullah bin Abdul-Rahman] was the seventh son of the Emir of the Second Saudi State, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal.

The essential problem is that Saudi princes have at least ten or twenty sons each, and they all reuse the same ten or twenty names.

Until today, I was not aware of any European tradition even remotely so confusing. Today I learned of the House of Reuss.

I have other things to do today, so just a couple of highlights, starting with this summary:

Since the end of the 12th century, all male members of the House of Reuss are named Heinrich.

No, don't panic, there must be some way to distinguish them, and of course there is:

For the purpose of differentiation, they are given order numbers according to certain systems (see below, section Numbering of the Heinrichs)

Yes, they are numbered. Since the 12th century. So you might think they would be up to Heinrich MCMXVII by now. No no no, that would be silly.

In the elder line the numbering covers all male children of the elder House, and the numbers increase until 100 is reached and then start again at 1.

In the younger line the system is similar but the numbers increase until the end of the century before starting again at 1.

The Wikipedia article later embarks on a list of rulers of the House of Reuss that includes 151 Henrys with numbers as high as LXXVII. I wonder at this, since if they have really exercised that numbering scheme you would expect to see mention of at least one Henry with a number in the LXXX–XCIX range, but there are none.

A few of the 151 Henrys have distinctive nicknames like Henry II the Bohemian, Henry VII the Red, or Henry VI the Peppersack. But they seem to have run out of new epithets in the 14th century, and lapsed into a habit of using and reusing "the Elder", "the Middle", and "the Younger" over and over. Around the mid-1600s they tired even of this and abandoned the epithets entirely.

Just by way of example, I searched the page for “Henry XIX” and found three rulers by that name and number:

1. One born 1 March 1790, Heinrich XIX, Prince Reuss of Greiz

2. Another born 16 October 1720, Count of Selbitz. The English Wikipedia page is a redlink, but the German article on the Houses of Reuss has a bit to say.

3. And a third, born around 1440, where these is a whole article about him, in Bulgarian For some reason he is known as Хайнрих XXI фон Вайда, Henry XXI (not XIX) of Vaida.

Toward the end of the article, we learn this:

On 7 December 2022, German police conducted an operation which resulted in the arrest of 25 alleged members of the far-right group Reichsbürger, including a member of the Köstritz branch of the House of Reuss, identified as Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss. The suspects arrested in the operation were allegedly planning to overturn the existing German government, and instate Heinrich XIII as the new German de facto leader.

All I can think now is, I think of myself as someone who is good at sniffing out Wikipedia bullshit, but this entire article could be completely made up and I would never be the wiser.

By the way, the link from “Henry VI the Peppersack” is to an article in Bulgarian Wikipedia that does not appear to mention the "Peppersack" epithet, a search on the Internet Archive for books mentioning "Henry Peppersack" turns up nothing, and while the section on the plot to bring Heinrich XIII to power cites a source, the page it purports to link to is gone.

Addendum 20250215

Here's a funny coincidence. The highest-numbered Henry I could find was Henry LXXVII. Lord Sepulchrave is stated at the beginning of Titus Groan to be the 76th Earl of Groan, which makes Titus Groan the 77th.

[Other articles in category /lang] permanent link

Surnames from nicknames nobody has any more

English has a pattern of common patronymic names. For example, "John Peters" and "John Peterson" are someone whose father was named "Peter". ("Peters" should be understood as "Peter's".) Similarly we have John Williams and John Williamson, John Roberts and John Robertson, John Richards and John Richardson, John James and John Jameson, John Johns and John Johnson, and so on.

Often Dad's name was a nickname. For example, a common nickname for "John" is "Jack" and we have (less commonly) John Jacks and (more commonly) John Jackson. John Bills and John Bilson, John Wills and John Wilson, and John Willis and John Willison are Bill, Will, and Wille, all short for William.

"Richard" is "Dick", and we have John Dicks (or Dix) and John Dickson (or Dixon). "Nicholas" is "Nick" and we have John Nicks (or Nix) and John Nickson (or Nixon).

Sometimes the name has the diminutive suffix “-kin” inserted. Wilkins is little Will's son, as is Wilkinson; Peterkins is little Peter's son.

These patterns are so common that if you find surnames that follow them you can almost always infer a forename, although it may be one that is no longer common, or that is spelled differently. For example, many people are named Pierce, Pearse, Pierson, or Pearson, which is from the name Pierre, Piers or Pierce, still used in English although much less common than in the past. (It is from the same root as Peter.) Perkins is little Pierre. Robin used to be a nickname for Robert (it's “Robkin” with the difficult “-bk-” simplified to just “-b-”) and we have John Robins and John Robinson.

Sometimes, the pattern is there but the name is unclear because it is a nickname that is now so uncommon that it is neatly forgotten. The fathers of John Watts, Watson, and Watkins were called Wat, which used to be short for Walter. John Hobbs, John Hobson, and Hobkins are named for Hob, which was short for Robert in the same way that Rob and Bob are still. (I had a neighbor who was called Hob, and told me his family claimed that it was short for Robert, but that he wasn't sure. I assured him that they were correct.) “Daw”, an archaic nickname for “David”, gives us Dawes, Dawkins, and Dawson.

Back in September when I started this article I thought on John Gibbs and John Gibson. Who's named "Gib", and why? Is it archaic nickname? Yes! It was short for Gilbert. Then I forgot about the draft article until today when I woke up wondering about John Simpson (and, I realize now, John Simms and John Simkins). And it transpired "Sim" or "Simme" was once a common nickname for Simon.

I would welcome further examples.

Addenda

20250210

Vicki Rosenzweig reminds me that another lost nickname for Richard is "Hick" (like "Rick" and "Dick") and from this we get Hicks, Hix, Hickson, Hixon, Hickman, and (she informs me) "Hickmott".

"-mott" perhaps indicates a male in-law, according to the Dictionary of American Family Names via Ancestrry.com. The only other clear example of this that I noticed was "Willmott". Note that Gaelic names like Dermott are not of this type; the resemblance is coincidental.

We get Hodge / Hodges / Hodgson / Hodgkins from "Hodge", an arcahic nickname for Roger.

Lucy Keer suggests that Bateson / Bates is from "Bat", an archair nickname for Bartholomew.

Christopher Taylor reminds me that in Atkins and Atkinson the "At-" is short for "Adam", and similarly in "Addis" and "Addison". I know a guy named Atteson but I'm not sure it is the same thing.

20250210 (again)

Response to this article has been too much for me to keep up with.

Hacker News user tibbar mentions mentions several I either didn't know, or knew and forgot to include:

• "Dob" is another old nickname for "Robert", giving us "Dobson", "Dobbs", "Dobkin", etc.;
• "Dodge" another nickname for Roger, hence Dodgson, as in Louis Carrol's real name, Charles Dodgson;
• "Tibb" is an old nickname for Theobald, giving surnames like "Tibbs" and "Tibbets";
• "Hud" for "Hugh", giving us the Hudsons.

Citizen Claude weighs in

I also asked Claude for suggestions:

I'm going to paste a blog article that discusses common English surnames that are patronymic versions of forenames that no longer exist. For example, the common surname "Watson" is from "Wat", and "Wat" was once a common nickname for "Walter", but no longer used. I would like you to list ten similar examples that are not mentioned in the article.

Claude replied:

Here are ten examples of common English surnames derived from obsolete forenames or nicknames, different from those mentioned in the article:

1. Higgins/Higgs - from "Hick," a medieval pet form of Richard
2. Timms/Timson - from "Tim," originally a medieval nickname for Timothy
3. Hodgson/Hodges - from "Hodge," once a common nickname for Roger
4. Atkins/Atkinson - from "At" or "Atte," medieval diminutive of Adam
5. Parkins/Parkinson - from "Perkin," diminutive of Peter/Pierre
6. Judson/Judd - from "Judd," medieval nickname for Jordan
7. Malkins/Malkinson - from "Malk," diminutive of Malcolm
8. Larkins/Larkin - from "Larry" or "Laurence," medieval form of Lawrence
9. Collins/Colson - from "Col," medieval nickname for Nicholas
10. Huggins/Huggett - from "Hug," medieval pet form of Hugh

Remember that some of these might be made up. For example, Wiktionary claims that #7 is matronymic, from Malle, a nickname for Mary. Who's right? I don't know. The only way to settle this is with a cage match! I hope.

I complained that #2 was not to spec because “Tim” is still common, and demanded a replacement:

1. Rankins/Rankin - from "Ran," a medieval diminutive of Randolph

I also asked Claude if I had made any errors, and it said:

The article claims that "Robin" comes from "Robkin" with "bk" simplified to "b". This is incorrect.

"Robin" is actually a French diminutive of Robert, coming from Old French Robin/Rovin. …

This seems plausible.

[Other articles in category /lang/etym] permanent link

Just give the man the fish!

Last week I complained about a Math SE pathology in which OP asks a simple question, and instead of an answer gets an attempt at a socratic dialog. I ended by saying:

I have been banging this drum for decades, but I will cut the scroll here. Expect a followup article.

Seeing this, Scott Francis remarked:

when you say “I have been banging this drum for decades" I hear echoes of EFnet #perl in the back of my head :)

And yes, that is one of the things I was thinking of.

Thirty years ago the regulars in the #perl IRC channel would play a cruel teasing game. A stranger would come into the channel and ask a simple technical question, like “how do I remove the first character from a string?”

Instead of giving the answer, two or three people would reply perldoc perlre.

In case it's not obvious — and there is no reason why it should be — this means you can run this command to get the manual for how to use Perl regular expressions.

This manual was about 20,000 words long.

People indulging in this shitty behavior would excuse themselves by chanting the maxim “If you give a man a fish, he can eat for one day. If you teach him to fish, he can eat for his whole life.” An actual answer to a question was a “fish”. Apparently, saying perldoc perlre was considered to be “teaching a man to fish.”

If the newbie objected that the reply perldoc perlre was unhelpful, the regulars were only too ready to lecture them on why it was helpful actually, on why they didn't deserve a better answer, on why they shouldn't expect their questions to be answered, on how they were being rude by rejecting the help that was offered them, on how they shouldn't feel entitled to answers, and on why the regulars there were all very busy people with more important things to do that to answer stupid newbie questions.

In my view, someone who is hanging around in #perl should expect newbie questions, and if they don't want to answer newbie questions they simply shouldn't do it, they should ignore them. If they can't do that, if they are so enraged by newbie questions that it ruins the rest of the chat for them, they should go start a different channel with a name that won't attract newbies. But they should not hang around and vent their impotent rage on the newbies who inevitably do show up.

I'm kind of an asshole, but I'm not that big an asshole. I'm callous, but I'm not sadistic. Someone who says they don't have time to help you, but who does have time to explain to you in detail why they aren't helping you, is sadistic.

“Well, we want them to learn to read the manual,” the regulars would claim. Maybe so, but I don't think their strategy was usually effective. If one really wants people to read the manual, a much better strategy would be to answer the question, and then having established oneself as a helpful person, suggest the manual:

By the way, you can get complete documentation about regexes with the command perldoc perlre. It's really long, but it's full of useful information. The ^ operator I mentioned is in the section called "Metacharacters". Would you like help finding it?

On the other hand if what one actually wanted was to convince someone that Perl was a language used by assholes and they might have better success with a different language whose community had fewer assholes, then the #perl regulars’ strategy was probably very effective.

Then as now my usual habit was to just answer the question. There would be this odd little moment where three people would say perldoc perlre and I would say $string =~ s/^.//. Did people yell at me for this? I don't remember. Probably, I was spoiling their fun.

But at least once someone asked me (in good faith, I'm sure) why I did it my way. I saved my answer. It was:

Because it's easy. Because it's helpful. Because I think the theory that says that people will become dependent on it is bullshit.

Because I think the theory that says that telling them to read the man page is more helpful is also bullshit.

Because in my experience people are much more likely to heed your suggestion to read the man page after you have established that you are a helpful concerned person by assisting them.

The main points are the first two: Because it's easy, and because it's helpful, so why not?

It's at least 25 years later and I'm still angry about this. Who the hell hangs around in a help forum for the purpose of refusing to help?

Social media now is toxic in ways we couldn't have imagined then. But let's not forget that it could be pretty toxic then too.

Addenda

“in good faith, I'm sure” is not sarcasm.

20250208

The previous addendum was also not sarcasm.

[Other articles in category /misc] permanent link

Claude helps me find more presidential emoji

A couple of years back I tried to make a list of emoji representing the U.S. presidents. Many of them were fun and easy, or at least amused me. But for some I was stumped. What emoji represents Zachary Taylor?

I've been playing around with Anthropic's LLM “Claude” for a while, so I thought I'd see what Claude had to contribute.

Last time I had looked at the LLM space I was deeply unimpressed:

1. ChatGPT discusses four-digit numbers
2. ChatGPT discusses a hypothetical fifth tarot suit
3. ChatGPT discusses women named James
4. ChatGPT discusses cauliflower, Decameron and Scheherazade

But that was two years ago, and gods, what a difference. What persuded me that it was time to take another look was two articles by Adam Unikowsky. Unikowsky is a working lawyer who has practiced before the US Supreme Court. He writes an extremly geeky blog, called Adam's Legal Newsletter. Last summer he wrote two articles that blew my mind. Here's an excerpt from the first one:

Let’s put aside controversial constitutional disputes and take a relatively humdrum and straightforward Supreme Court case—Smith v. Spizziri, decided on May 16, 2024. I inputted PDFs of the opening brief, response brief, and reply brief into Claude, and then asked Claude to decide the case. Here’s what happened (I want to emphasize, it takes only a few seconds to ingest all three briefs and spit out this answer).

The prompt he gave to Claude was:

You are a Supreme Court Justice. Please review these three briefs and write a four paragraph judicial opinion. In the first, you will describe the dispute. In the second, you will describe the parties’ positions. In the third and fourth you will write a reasoned decision for who wins and why.

Claude did so; you can read the output on Unikowsky's blog. Here's his evaluation of the result:

This is absolutely correct, and exactly what the Supreme Court decided. 10/10.

Unikowsky looks at a second specific example and concludes:

This is perfect.

(His italics.)

Unikowsky then discusses at some length why AI might be preferable to human judges. Don't sneer; he has probably thought about this more carefully than you have. Read the article.

In the second article Unikowsky tests more extensively:

I downloaded the briefs in every Supreme Court merits case that has been decided so far this Term, inputted them into Claude 3 Opus (the best version of Claude), and then asked a few follow-up questions.

And he reports:

The results were otherworldly. Claude is fully capable of acting as a Supreme Court Justice right now. When used as a law clerk, Claude is easily as insightful and accurate as human clerks, while towering over humans in efficiency.

(Emphasis mine this time.)

This is why I decided I should take another look at LLMs. Well, this is not what I planned to write about. You are here for presidential emoji, so let's do that. Here's my prompt to Claude:

I'm going to paste a full list of U.S. presidents and associated emoji, and I'd like you to explain all of them. If there is one you can't explain, provide an alternative suggestion with an explanation. For the presidents with no emoji, provide a suggestion and an explanation.

and then appended the list.

Here are Claude's explanations for the emoji I had selected:

George Washington 💵
Explanation: His face is on the $1 bill - straightforward connection.

Thomas Jefferson 📜
Explanation: References his role as primary author of the Declaration of Independence.

Right so far.

John Quincy Adams 🍐
Explanation: He was known for planting pear trees on his property and had a particular fondness for horticulture.

This wasn't what I had in mind. I was thinking that it would be funny to represent John Quincy Adams with a picture of a quince. Which is silly and dumb and I can't fault Claude for not getting it. If it had been Claude that had made this suggestion I would probably have quibbled that “Quincy” is not pronounced the same as “quince”.

Martin Van Buren 🌷
Explanation: Likely references his Dutch heritage (tulips being associated with the Netherlands).

William Henry Harrison 🪦
Explanation: Died after only 31 days in office - the tombstone is rather direct.

Both right. Although maybe it would be more amusing to use 🛶 for Harrison.

Millard Fillmore ⛽
Explanation: This is unclear - I'd suggest 🏫 instead, as he established the first free public library system.

Another pun, this one even dumber that the quince. ⛽ is the gas pump you use to fill more gas into your car, get it?

I'm not excited about Claude's suggestion, but at least it isn't stupid.

Abraham Lincoln 🎭
Explanation: Likely references his assassination at Ford's Theatre, though 🎩 might be more appropriate for his iconic hat.

Claude is a little bit prudish and tends not to like my inappropriate jokes. The hat of course is obvious. In the previous article I said:

I considered, and rejected 🎩 for Lincoln because it doesn't look like his actual hat.

Still, it's a perfectly good suggestion.

Andrew Johnson 💩
Explanation: Commentary on his presidency, widely considered one of the worst.

I notice that Claude did not object that this was inappropriate. Prudish or not, even Claude can agree that Andrew Johnson was a turd of a President.

Ulysses S. Grant 🍸
Explanation: References his noted drinking habits.

Rutherford B. Hayes 🧔🏻
Explanation: Known for his distinctive beard.

James Garfield 🧔🏻
Explanation: Also known for his beard.

I wasn't completely phoning it in here, the repeated white-guys-with-beards thing is also a joke. I don't think Garfield was actually known for his beard, but whatever. (I've already dispensed with Garfield the lazy cat in the previous article.)

Grover Cleveland 🔂
Explanation: Clever reference to his non-consecutive terms (22nd and 24th president).

I'm pretty sure I don't like that Claude appears to be trying to flatter me. What does it mean, philosophically, when Claude calls something ‘clever’? I have no idea. Being flattered by a human is bad enough, they might really mean something by it.

Benjamin Harrison 🧔🏻
Explanation: Another bearded president.

Theodore Roosevelt 🧸
Explanation: The teddy bear was named after him.

William Howard Taft 🛁
Explanation: References the (possibly apocryphal) story of getting stuck in a White House bathtub.

Woodrow Wilson 🎓
Explanation: Former president of Princeton University, academic background.

Warren G. Harding 🫖
Explanation: Likely references the Teapot Dome scandal.

Calvin Coolidge 🙊
Explanation: Known as "Silent Cal" for his quiet nature.

Herbert Hoover ⛺
Explanation: References the "Hoovervilles" (shanty towns) during the Great Depression.

I wasn't sure Claude would get these last three because they're a little bit tricky and obscure. But it did.

Franklin D. Roosevelt 👨‍🦽
Explanation: References his use of a wheelchair due to polio.

Harry S. Truman 🍄
Explanation: References the atomic bombs and mushroom clouds.

Dwight D. Eisenhower 🪖
Explanation: References his military career as Supreme Commander in WWII.

John F. Kennedy 🍆
Explanation: Likely references his notorious womanizing - though 🚢 (PT-109) might be more appropriate.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Again Claude implies that my suggestion is inappropriate. Lighten up, Claude.

Lyndon B. Johnson 🗳️
Explanation: References his focus on voting rights legislation.

Uh, yeah, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is definitely what I meant, I certainly would not have been intending to remind everyone of LBJ's propensity to stuff ballot boxes.

In some ways, Claude is a better person than I am.

Richard M. Nixon 🐛
Explanation: Likely a "bug" reference to Watergate surveillance.

Gerald R. Ford 🏈
Explanation: Was a football player at University of Michigan.

Jimmy Carter 🥜
Explanation: Was a peanut farmer before presidency.

Ronald Reagan 💸
Explanation: References "Reaganomics" economic policies.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

George H. W. Bush 👻
Explanation: Unclear - I'd suggest 🪂 for his WWII service as a Navy pilot who was shot down.

I had picked 👻 to recall his tenure as Director of the CIA. But on looking into it I have found he had not served in that role for nearly as long as I thought: only from 1974–1976. It is far from his most prominent accomplishment in government.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Bush had beaten Reagan in the 1980 election. People sometimes say that the Republican party only ever runs fools and clowns for president. George Bush was their candidate in 1988 and whatever his faults he was neither a fool nor a clown.

Bill Clinton 🎷
Explanation: Famous for playing the saxophone.

George W. Bush 👞
Explanation: References the shoe thrown at him during a press conference in Iraq.

Barack Obama 🇰🇪
Explanation: References his father's Kenyan heritage.

Here's Claude again being a better person than me. I had picked 🇰🇪 because I was trying to troll my audience with the insinuation that Obama was born in Kenya.

Donald Trump 🍊
Explanation: References his distinctive skin tone.

Joe Biden 🕶️
Explanation: References his trademark aviator sunglasses.

Right, except to me the little quiff on the tangerine is also mocking Trump's hair. But overall I give Claude no demerits. The only times Claude didn't take my meaning were on stupid shit like ⛽ Fillmore.

Here are the presidents where I couldn't come up with anything and asked for Claude's suggestions. I found Claude's suggestions mostly reasonable but also pretty dull.

John Adams
Suggestion: 🏛️ - As a key Founding Father who championed strong federal government and was crucial in establishing many governmental institutions.

I don't know, 🏛️ is supposed to be a “classical building”, and yes, the buildings in Washington were eventually in neoclassical style once they were built, mostly in the early 20th century, but okay, I guess.

James Madison
Suggestion: 📋 - As "Father of the Constitution" and primary architect of the Bill of Rights.

Okay, but… a clipboard?

James Monroe
Suggestion: 🌎 - For the Monroe Doctrine, establishing U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Full marks. The only reason I'm not kicking myself for not thinking of it first is that I just barely did think of it first. As I was composing the prompt for Claude I said to myself “Why didn't I think of 🌎 for the Monroe Doctrine? Oh well, I'll see what Claude says anyway.”

Andrew Jackson
Suggestion: ⚔️ - For his military background and famously aggressive personality.

Fine.

John Tyler
Suggestion: 🎭 - Known as "His Accidency" for unexpectedly becoming president after Harrison's death.

Not good. I had to get Claude to explain this one to me. See below.

James K. Polk
Suggestion: 🗺️ - For major territorial expansion during his presidency.

Not good.

(The emoji is “world map”.)

Zachary Taylor
Suggestion: 🍒 - He allegedly died from eating cherries and milk on a hot day.

Whatever my complaints about Claude's other suggestions, I feel that this one redeems all their faults. I love it. It's just the kind of thing I was looking for, the sort of thing Arachne would have woven into her tapestry.

James Buchanan
Suggestion: 👨‍🦳 - The only bachelor president.

I'll discuss this one later.

Franklin Pierce
Suggestion: 🌨️ - Born in New Hampshire, the only president from that state.

I had wanted to comment on Peirce's best quality which was his great hairstyle, but I couldn't find any good emoji for hair. But this is a better idea. Using 🌨️ for New Hampshire is funny.

Chester A. Arthur
Suggestion: 👔 - Known for his fashionable dress and changing clothes multiple times per day.

I don't know a damn thing about Chester Arthur except he succeeded Garfield and he had sideburns. I haven't even checked to see if Claude is right about his fashionable dress. I don't think it is physically possible to get me to care about Chester Arthur.

Okay, back to Tyler and Buchanan. I asked Claude to explain Tyler:

The only suggestion you made that I don't understand is for John Tyler. How does 🎭 relate to "his accidency"?

Claude said:

Ah, I see why that's confusing! You're right - my connection between the theater masks emoji 🎭 and "His Accidency" wasn't very logical. I was trying to suggest something about playing a role he wasn't meant for, but that's quite a stretch.

That actually makes sense! I agree it was a stretch, but I see it now.

But Claude continued:

Let me suggest a better emoji for John Tyler: ⚡️

ZOMG, hilarious! Perfect! A++++ 11/10 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ would buy again.

If you don't get it, here's an excerpt of Claude's explanation:

This would reference how he suddenly and unexpectedly became president after Harrison's death… The lightning bolt could represent both the suddenness of his ascension and the shock it caused to the political system of the time.

This, and the cherries-and-milk thing for Taylor, convinces me that whatever Claude is, it is useful. I asked it for help with this ridiculous task and it provided real contributions of real value.

I remarked:

The gray hair for Buchanan I do not like, for two reasons. First, many presidents had gray hair. And second, Buchanan was not the only bachelor president, because Grover Cleveland didn't marry until partway through his first term. Do you have any suggestions for Hayes, Garfield, or Harrison?

Claude tried again for Buchanan:

Thank you for those corrections about Buchanan! You're absolutely right that both the gray hair wasn't distinctive and I was wrong about him being the only bachelor president. Let me rethink that one.

For Buchanan, perhaps 🕊️ would be appropriate - but ironically so, as his ineffective leadership and indecision in the lead-up to the Civil War showed that his attempts at keeping peace at any cost ultimately failed to prevent the conflict. Though that might be too subtle.

I don't love it, but I don't have anything better…

No, wait, I just thought of something! I'm going with 🥫 because, to my mind, Buchanan was the guy who, when he tried to kick the slavery can a little farther down the road, discovered that there was no more road down which to kick it.

I suggested this to Claude just now and it was so enthusiastically complimentary that I was embarrassed, so let's move on.

Claude didn't have any ideas I liked for Hayes, Garfield, or Harrison. I tried workshopping Hayes a little more:

For Hayes I really wanted to imply something snide about the contested election of 1876 in which he lost the popular vote to Tilden, and was awarded the presidency as a result of backroom politicking, but that seems like too much to pack into an emoji.

Claude said:

Maybe 🎲 for the "dice roll" nature of the commission's decisions? Or 🤝 for the corrupt bargain itself? But neither really captures the full gravity of how that compromise effectively ended Reconstruction and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

I think it kind of misses the point if you don't put EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE 1-2 on the corrupt handshake: 🤝🏻. But this is the amazing thing, it does feel like I'm workshopping with Claude. It really feels like a discussion between two people. This isn't Eliza parroting back IS IT BECAUSE OF YOUR MOTHER THAT YOU SAY I DON'T PUT EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE 1-2 ON THE CORRUPT HANDSHAKE?.

Could Hayes be a crow? You're supposed to be able to compose ‘bird’, ZWJ, and ‘black square’ to get a black bird. It might be too bitter, even for me.

If you want a conclusion, it is: Claude is fun and useful, even for silly stuff that nobody could have planned for.

[Other articles in category /tech/gpt] permanent link

Polish Spam

Content warning: mass killing of farmed animals

Today I complained that my email provider had delivered a spam message to me that was in Polish. I understand that spam can be hard to identify, but Polish isn't, I don't know Polish, and any message sent to me in Polish can be discarded. Even if it's 100% legit, I don't know Polish, so we might as well throw it out.

This led a colleague to remark:

I'd love to try Polish spam. I wonder if there'd be caraway seed.

I wonder too.

But first I have to tell this story I heard from a Romanian co-worker. He said that in Romania in the 1980s they had a lot of mink farms, for mink fur. When they werre done getting the fur they would have a big pile of dead, naked minks, so what would they do with them? Well, in Romania in the 1980s, meat was scarce, so they would eat them. The trouble is, minks are carnivores, they are tough and stringy and taste terrible. To make them edible, the Romanians chopped them finely, made them into small loaves, and canned them like Spam. Still this "Spink" was only barely edible, it was the variety of meat that was only eaten by Romanians who could afford no other meat.

I told my colleague this, and said “That's the best I can do for you regarding local versions of Spam in formerly Soviet-bloc countries.” Is not Spam and it is not Polish, but at least it is interesting. Maybe.

Thanks to the Wonders of the Internet, it is not hard to find Spamlike potted meat products from Poland. For example, konserwa lisiecka, which is actually a canned sausage:

The label has the ingredients listed clearly. I see garlic (czosnek), white pepper (pieprz biały), and sugar (cukier) but no caraway, which I think would be kminek.

Here's golonka wieprzowa:

This time the ingredients include przyprawy, which is “spices” and could conceivably include caraway, but the label specifies z gorczycą, which means “including mustard”, so if there is caraway it does not get top billing.

From the labels I guess these are something like military-issue rations, which I suppose would be seasoned to the least common denominator. Perhaps someone's grandma makes a delectable potted pork dish with lots of caraway.

I do not speak Polish. If I have made any language errors, I apologize to Maciej Cegłowski.

[Other articles in category /food] permanent link